3 ms·
Yep, the reason we do not have more nuclear is because environmentalists (perhaps the 100% kind?) have vehemently opposed it. As far as the story about solar a
by DanielBMarkham 11y ago
Yep, the reason we do not have more nuclear is because environmentalists (perhaps the 100% kind?) have vehemently opposed it.
As far as the story about solar and wind being ready? This is a very easy thing to test: if it's ready, it's ready. You'll be selling them like hotcakes. If it's not ready, it's not -- folks can certainly continue investing, and I wish them the best of luck. But let's go do something right now that we know that works. We could have started with a lot of this next generation nuclear technology a decade or more ago -- and had the support of a big chunk of the people and the commercial energy sector. How far along would we have been now?
We have consistently been more enamored with keeping the troops riled up and having a good political fight than we have with accepting already existing solutions to the problem which aren't as contentious.
I wish solar the best. Wind also. But if we do not understand how we got here, we have little hope of making good strategic decisions and sticking with them.
- DennisP 11y agoSome environmentalists, sure, but also the fossil industry, which has provided a lot of anti-nuclear propaganda. Also, the chair of the DOE when it canceled the IFR had deep ties to fossil fuels. We should certainly deploy as much wind and solar as we can right now. Using fossil as backup is better than using it as primary. But so far it doesn't look like renewables alone are the fastest way to get off fossil fuels entirely. Adding nuclear baseload would make things a lot easier.